Making “A Conservative’s Case for Moderation” at Real Clear Politics on May 15, Peter Berkowitz makes mention of The Philadelphia Society.
PhillySoc President Joe Johnston points us to a video overview of “social justice” by Jonah Goldberg. Joe continues to contribute to the analysis of this invasive and problematic concept with his letter to the editor of Commentary (May 2014) in response to Arthur Brooks’ article, “Be Open-handed to Your Brothers” (Feb 2014).
John Zmirak offers an eye-opener into the continuing degradation of campus culture with The Devil in Harvard Yard.
George Leef: “What is the Worst Agency in Washington, D.C., Today?”
John Goodman: Why Did Health Spending Slow Down Before it Sped Up?
Writing at The Public Discourse, Sam Gregg proposes that merely flying the freedom banner isn’t enough . . . we also have to bring reason to bear to understand and explain what we mean by liberty:
At some point, for instance, those in the business of promoting freedom need to engage more precisely what they mean by liberty. After all, modern liberals never stop talking about the subject. Moreover, if the default understanding of freedom in America is reduced to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s mystery clause (“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”), then liberty’s meaning will be very difficult to integrate with any substantive commitment to reason. That should worry freedom-lovers, because in the absence of reason we can have no principled objection—as opposed to mere emotional unease—to unjust suppressions of freedom by the sophistical, powerful, or ruthless.
– See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/03/12401/#sthash.6GwdxEGp.dpuf
Dan Oliver writing in The American Conservative offers some thoughtful queries and cautions in reflecting on Arthur Brooks’ call (Commentary, March 2014) for a conservative social justice agenda:
Conservatives know the value of faith, community, and work. Heaven knows they know the value of family and of education—look at the efforts they have made to promote various non-governmental solutions to the problems in these areas. And their proposal for Social Security is not to abolish it but to privatize it. Brooks may think that conservatives have been insufficiently articulate, and given their presidential and policy track record, he has a point. But is his point augmented or diminished by Gallup’s finding that 72 percent of Americans describe themselves as either conservatives or moderates? Have conservatives done well, and would they have done better flying a social justice banner? Or worse? . . .
Perhaps, as Oliver suggests, conservatives might try re-thinking how we speak in the idiom we know: “Maybe, just maybe, the way to capture the public’s attention is to fly a freedom banner…”